And you'd never know what sort of ' Offers ' or overtures have or haven't already been made. So you really don't know who's taking to who , when they are talking , or even whats it's about until it happens. So you won't know all this until Sayona actually accepts one or more of them. But that doesn't mean they ( Sayona ) haven't already been approached or been in any preliminary discussions.
On the contrary though - I reckon the very statement of ' Private Capital Funding ' which came from Guy Laliberte says that they or someone has been talking. Unless of course it's just a stuff up or ' Look over there ' type throw away comment which he wasn't supposed to , or had no authority in speaking out about. And as I have already spoken on this point , it does look and feel a bit strange when you are left trying to decipher what it was that he was obviously trying to get at.
Coming back to Wyckoff's theorems , why should it be the accepted Investing norm that ordinary shareholders be ONLY left to ' Decipher ' information in this manner when this information is most likely and clearly already known in some other ' Omnipotent Player ' Investing Circles....
Getting back to the off-take discussions. When you think about it , it would be so easy for a FORD or GM or the like to just approach Sayona head on for an ' off-take ' arrangement which could even ' Stream ' the required funding in order to fast-track production of Carbonate or Hydroxide..
But the issues here as far as I seen it is a.) the quality issues haven't been qualified or resolved to the full extent of this actually occurring . And it's NOT going to happen on a ' What If ' basis for FORD or whoever on whether the lithium chemicals of spod might be suitable . Its more a question of ' is it suitable '. So that' scenario with a FORD is just not going to happen in my opinion. A bit like putting the cart before the horse so to speak .
And b.) if the expansion and the ' Whole Entire Project ' as has been stated by the Sayona Quebec CEO is going to be funded by some ' Private Capital ' connections , then it may take some time in order to get these terms and arrangements consummated to the level of details which is commercially and legally required. Especially if the terms entail some level of future convertible securities etc....which may or may not include shareholder approvals and / or even I.Q and some level of Government approval as well.
Because after all , the agreement with Sayona which is contingent on them ( Sayona ....and Piedmont) producing Lithium chemicals by year 6 is in fact an agreement with I.Q and by extension the Government.
So any future ' Private Funding ' partner will have to be both compatible and comfortable as well as aligned with this current contractual requirement. And I guess especially if they are funding it. So the deal that Sayona is perhaps looking for currently or indeed in talks with , would have to be one which is more complex by its nature and therefore more time consuming in getting it to the stage of signing off by all interested parties and stakeholders.......which Piedmont is now in that basket as well alongside I.Q.
And just hypothetically if something adverse were to happen to Piedmont , Tesla would have no legal contract or right to Sayona's lithium products as they do not have a legally binding agreement with Sayona. So by just using this as an example , you can see that whatever deal is going to be made for funding for Sayona's ' Entire Project ' will have to be one which satisfies the greater funding requirement of the Lithium Chemicals and therefore will require some considerable level of legally binding agreements or acceptance of Sayona's Quebec deal with Quebec for these ' Added Value ' Chemicals and its production. Similarly if it all fails again because of it NOT meeting these conditions precedent who is liable where is the security , who will own it , and will Quebec feel comfortable with whatever terms and with who.
So I guess I don't see a FORD or any other similar more direct off-take partner like a FORD being categorized or regarded as fitting into the mould of ' Private Capital Funding '
With respects to any potential ' Private Capital Funding ' , while on the one hand one might argue the point that so long as we don't have the completed economic studies and therefore cannot know exactly what it is that we need or intend on spending in terms of Capital for CAPEX we can't actually have a ' Funding Agreement ' . However on the other hand , one could equally argue that if we are indeed going to have a ' Long Term ' recognizable and stable Private Capital Funder or consortium of Funders ....wouldn't it make more sense in the interest of further project promotion and momentum , security , and stability of this Quebec critical minerals project that we know this arrangement sooner rather that necessarily later down the track when the economic studies are formally completed.
So my point here is that surely if there is a ' Private Capital Funder ' in the wings , that this potential funding partner should begin this longer term funding process by establishing some sort of ' interim ' revolving funding facility in the order of $30 - $50 million backed up by future convertible securities or bonds in the same manner that Piedmont had agreed to take their initial tranche funding arrangements with Sayona until it decided it wanted to convert the lot in June before the NAL acquisition was approved .....and NOT the longer quarterly 8% interest accruing quarterly terms which would have seen them potentially holding their notes until January 2026 or thereabouts.
So for me , the SP is clearly oscillating around this 17 - 18.5 cent levels in the same manner as it previously did at the 15 - 15.5 cents pending further ' expected ' directions being laid out by Brett and Management.
And if I were to wager a bet on what's next , I would stick with my supposition that any potential near term arrangements for 'Private Capital Funding' will require some sort of shareholder approval and resolution at the forthcoming 2021 AGM which would normally be held on the 30th October ( Friday 29th October this year ) and which is Melbourne Cup weekend .....so if it's pushed out for any reason , it would not likely be on the Monday 1st or FIRST Tuesday in November on the 2nd.
And this raises a significant question in itself as to whether Sayona seeks additional relief due to COVID -19 in extending its 2021 Full Year Accounts and Annual Report which were of course released 16th September and 30th September 2020 respectfully.
The fact that we haven't seen the Full Year Accounts already would suggest that something is up in terms of their expected normal reporting timetable and I suppose due to the NAL acquisition there could be sufficient cause for this to have been applied for on their behalf. Time will tell I guess , but we might just end up seeing the September QTR activities and cash flow statements on the 29th October instead and before the normally scheduled AGM which would also have been on that day.
(20min delay)