Hi All, and good to see some other posters on the RED thread!
Andrew: Anderbond has informed us (through a 3rd party), of RED having been tied to an exclusivity to DB until end of Sept (that must end tomorrow, being 30th I HOPE!!!). I would imagine that DB doesn't have to change the terms but once the exclusivity is over then DB doesn't have RED over a barrel any more, so they lose out and I'm sure their standing in the industry will have been served a bitter pill also! The issue may have been their capacity to deliver due to credit committee requirements and inflexibility, which is a test of a banks real capacity to be in the project finance industry! So its not a smart longer term commercial play if they don't also remain flexible with the terms and conditions. Of course we outsiders will never know why RED decided to appoint an exclusive mandate with DB in the first place, I really can't fathom it since the Chairman has been involved with many other financings in recent years and should've had more experience to "trust" a bank with an exclusive mandate! I know prior to appointing DB RED had many different options, not just equity but also other pre-pay gold loan proposals etc. Maybe they have come back on the drawing board as well.
Therefore, as you correctly state, RED does have many other options, and I expect that if the exclusivity does in fact end in next days then its most likely we will see an announcement out regarding a preferred alternative soon. Thats possibly why RED was generally trading up yesterday, although as YuYu noted elsewhere, after trading up for most of the day, it took a few shares at 16 cents at the close to give the appearance that RED was still going down!
Andrew, if you read the Financial Accounts, RED refer to significant events in the past year (page 2) and it doesn't refer to DB at all, it says "A banking group was awarded the mandate to provide a senior secured debt financing package for the development of the Siana project, subject to normal due diligence and credit approval processes." That to me suggests that RED have decided to go elsewhere! (Just me reading between the lines I admit).
Mgm1a, I do hope you agree that whilst I post positive aspects of RED, in fact I think that my comments remain factual with respect to keeping readers informed and being relatively balanced? And you will be the first one to acknowledge the valuations are correct since you also model RED (albeit using a 15% discount rate I gather?). With regard to your last comparative analysis statistics I'm not able to follow your line of reasoning with the
"Cash 5.9c
Mine 4.1c
Gold 6c, which on 849k is $AUD71 per oz
Total 16c"
Can you explain it more fully please. As you may also realise, my main skill is technical, not accounting (I presume that is your forte!), thus I don't take so much from the historical costs as you have done, my line of reasoning is that most of the sunk costs do not actually mean much for future development, although I agree it does demonstrate cost control historically is a positive element. (By the way Siana has been on RED books since 2001 so its been developing for the past 9 looooonnngg years, not 14 years, most of their early exploration work relates to Australian, esp WA exploration). I have never doubted RED management in terms of being careful with their past exploration expenditures relative to peers, but more critical of some of their priorities and decisions and quoted timeframes for delivery of critical elements of the projects.
I would also like to make the following comment, that is a danger when comparing different companies for EV. I am always concerned when analysts use Inferred Resources, with no reserve information being available (as they are pre completed feasibility study). An Inferred Resource means different things to different resource practitioners, bearing in mind that whilst some use a fairly objective basis for their assessment its still dependent on continuity of far flung data points, and others are less strict, and so the estimation can be frought with errors for many different reasons. In the case of RED, the resources have been defined on an objective basis (Cube Consulting is a very good resource practitioning consultant), but more importantly have been then had the rigours of a 3D economic whittle assessment to come up with reserves (ie no included Inferred Resources in the reserves) and all other factors such as metallurgy etc to contend with.
I suggest that the best way to compare such to other companies is to compare it with companies only having reserves, applying a DCF, and that is when RED comes out as a very cheap gold explorer/developer/producer in the making! Those Inferred Resources (and in fact even other categories of resources, Indicated and Measured) may never come to anything if they are too deep or whatever, that is not the case with RED, they also have Inferreds sitting within the Reserve areas that will be subject to mining, esp in the underground section and therefore if they exist will likely come into reserve inventory during mining drillouts.