I agree, communication by a company is important for its...

I agree, communication by a company is important for its wellbeing and that of its owners (the shareholders).

However, I don't share your conviction that communication by our board is all that sub par. For example, they have given broker presentations and, as we have seen in the past from the broker data posted by RickDipper, quite a few brokers are aware of the stock and actively trade it for their clients and, perhaps, their own accounts (although, the aggregated weekly data posted by RickDipper did not divulge that much detail). In addition, several brokerages follow the stock and have issued their own investment reports — all of them favourable, from memory, but none of them living up to enunciated expectations, also from memory.

The most recent report from Taylor Collison that appears on the KNL web site is dated 3rd February 2016, in which they provide a target price of 48c (speculative buy). Their target price appears realistic given the quality progress made by the company. However, it appears to be at odds with the trading activity (strong selling) exhibited by TC, at least, in several of the most recent broker reports posted by RickDipper.

My concern is that, if the share price remains at present levels (low 20 cents), then a finance announcement, when it is made, with a debt:equity ratio of, say, 75:25 (as I think Mr Spinks alluded to in his recent Africa Down Under presentation, which, somewhat oddly, is not to be found on the KNL website) will lead to very substantial dilution for existing holders. It is also my concern that the lack of buoyancy in the share price may be due to (astute or "more knowledgeable") existing holders selling part of their holdings in order to make funds available for a rights issue when it does materialise; expecting that it will be at a discount to current levels.

This all begs the question of why the share price, and market capitalisation, is so low when the company clearly has achieved so much and, prima facie, has such a bright future. Where are the buyers who should be piling into what should be a very profitable enterprise? Why haven't the target prices of the analysts, like TC, been realised or even vaguely hinted at. Any upward momentum in the share price is sold down, when the future picture looks very bright. In a way, I would be relieved if it WAS just a matter of better communication — attracting many new deep pocketed entities seeking large positions, elevating the price on heavy volume and keeping it in an uptrend instead of the characteristic slump back to lousy levels.

We saw a burst of strong buying, last week, when the price hit 19.5c. Is this the level to which it has to descend before substantial buyers are willing to have a splurge? Will we see no sustained upward trend in the share price, and market capitalisation, until funding is in place and every entity that wants to be on board already has their fill of shares at a lousy price of sub-20c or whatever? If KNL need circa Aust$100M to get the mine going — Aust$75M from debt and Aust$25M from new equity via a rights issue — and its present market capitalisation is only around Aust$50M, then every present holder is going to need to cough up for half as many shares as they already own: that is, a 1 for 2 rights issue. I don't see holders doing that which means that the underwriters are going to have to absorb a large pool of unsubscribed shares. That will be fine for them, if they have the dough and the price appreciates (as it most likely will).

So... one wonders who the underwriters will be?

Cui bono... from a low share price?

FWIW IMO DYODD