the way forward, page-122

Crackpot.

Firstly, I apologise for the personal "tone" of my previous post. Please accept it.

I bought in excess of R13m shares on the back of the supreme court judgement being positive. Long before you were on the scene. I have cashed in a profit in excess of 400% and bought back in at various levels. Overall, based on the current price, and my realized profit MLS has been the single best investment I have ever made. If you think I am talking BS - go way back in the thread and read my posts from around the time. I have made a killing and hope to make even more.

Secondly, the company brought out a report and in that report they compared their Radon results to EXT and the thrust was that the resource may be as big if not way bigger than EXT. At the time EXTs market cap was 1bn. Posters starting talking about "what if MLS had the resource EXT had". Based on this ASSUMPTION I did a detailed analysis which did the theoretical comparison. Go and look at my post. I put a lot of effort into the exercise - I went through EXTs reports, spoke to their Chairman and got a full history of how EXT got to where they were. I took MLS market cap at the time and assumed that the exploration cost and human resource cost would be exactly the same as EXTs (assuming once again that the resource was the same - please understand this). There is only one way a company like MLS will raise capital and that is by issuing shares. Based on actual numbers from their annual reports and input from EXT itself, I built a model which amortized the assumed expenditure MLS would have to incur over a period of exploration similar to the time it got EXT to the point it was. The model (HAD TO) assume that exploration and related human resource costs would be funded by the issuing of shares and that obviously such shares would be issued as and when required. It is a logical assumption that as the exploration unfolded the price would increase and therefore capital raising would be done at different share prices. I stated (for the sake of simplicity) that the average cost of capital was around 4 times the current price. As I said, I spent a lot of time on the comparative model and I believe it added some insight for the board members. If you or anyone had asked me details of my assumptions I would have gladly answered - in the belief that I can provide something valuable. I can add nothing on the geo side but I do believe I can bring something to the party from a finance/legal perspective. How can 4-5 x capital possibly be ridiculous if the model was pre-wired to assume a "what if we had the same market cap after exploration as EXT". It isn't possible.

Obelix