some answers for Guerreiro (NCAV, tungsten mines and others)Guerrreiro's several concerns at this point are fair - shared by many I am sure - and deserve a one by one answer.
"Nothing has changed with Almonty's Mr: Black's takeover, the stock continues to be manipulated and held down like Dundee's accumulation of cheap shares in exchange for services and the likes of loansharking financing @12% / year. ( same Sh? t different smell)"
12% for a one-year 1M convertible to a semi-broke company, with principal and interest payable in COMMON shares is not loan sharking. It is a rather common type of loan in these circumstances and to be expected prior to project financing. Dundee's offer to receive PREFERRED shares for their 4M convertible last year on the other hand was potentially predatory. Once IMC agrees on off-take at reasonable terms future loans will be closer to commercial bank terms (5-6%), which is what Almonty pays on its current debt. Seriously, did anyone expect things to change in one week? like maybe a 200M all-cash offer?
"Why would Dundee turn WOLF's shares to Almonty so cheap, a company that is loosing Millions of $$$$ as recently reported in trying to maintain the Spanish, Portugues, & other operations going with much less in ground asset value compared to WOF."
I do not think Dundee turned its shares cheap to ALmonty. These guys do not do anything cheap. If they exchanged Woulfe shares for ALmonty shares they had a reason. In my view they were judged by locals and TaeguTec (IMC) to be un-capable to bring up the mine to production in timely fashion, and were told to find someone that could. Customer rules with low commodity prices. Concerning Almonty's losses, selectively picking one quarter is not really fair. Unlike Woulfe, which has burned through 40M with not a kg of tungsten mined, Almonty only had to raise less than 20M 4 years ago to start production and has been quite profitable until this past quarter, when they have lost money on account of refurbishing the new acquisition Wolfram Camp Mine in Australia. According to their recent MD&A and the analysis by Edison the WCM situation should be rectified already this year.
"Could someone on this Board closer to the picture give us a comparable analysis opinion on both companies reported in ground assets and it's law of pure potentiality."
Pure mining potentiality and 2 dollars these days will buy you a medium size of Tim's best and a curler. I have provided some numbers in one previous post to show that the properties of the two companies are similar in terms of current and expected production (tons/year). Sangdong when fully operational will provide about 10% more tungsten per year than the combined three mines of Almonty. The life-span of the current mine plans (as presented in public reports) are also comparable. The unaccounted reserves however are different. The ALmonty mines are smaller surface mines. Sangdong is a very large underground mine, currently mostly under water. So the yet unlocked value of Sangdong could be quite high. Key word here is unlocked. Right now unlocked is worth nothing. In this respect, Almonty adds much value to Woulfe because: 1) it is proven capable to produce a profit from Tungsten mining, and 2) has the expertise required to unlock the value of the Korean mine. I recommend reading about the Panasqueira mine and how similar it is to Sangdong.
Trying to answer the original question of Guerreiro, here is an attempt to value ALmonty and Woulfe on (close to) the same basis. Looks to me both companies are presently undervalued and worth investing if one's outlook is positive for tungsten - especially under common management.
Valuation for Almonty - given in the Edison report (page 4)
DCF of producing operations 42.2
NPV of Valtreixal 20.2
18.7% interest in Woulfe 3.9
Total enterprise value 65.6
Less net debt 15.1
Implied equity value 50.5
Number of shares, m 51.9
Value per share, C$ 1.0 (with better cash flow and APT prices last quarter Value per share was assessed by Edison at C$ 1.2)
Trying the same for Woulfe:
DCF of producing operations -5
NPV of Sangdong 140 (my guess - NPV was 160 for WO price at $15000/ton - should be less now due to lower 13000/ton tungsten price)
Total enterprise value 135
Less net debt 10+75 = 85 (payment to IMC + construction debt)
Implied equity value 50
Number of shares, m 450 (fully diluted)
Value per share, C$ 0.11 (current, before mine construction and operation)
"For me this is the third time over the years that I have been thrown under the Bus by Dundee and its gang. ( Why did Ned Goodman oust Brian Wesson?? and delay the project?? as we got sucked in the dream of growth)."
I have not been exposed to Wesson management at WOulfe. From what I have seen through digging around old news releases (still on the web site) I have concluded the Wessons did not run a tight ship, wasted alot of money and the sweetest spot price-wise to get the mine started. pulled a few fast ones that upset shareholders and locals as well. It could also be they did not know enough about tungsten to get the mine going. And I have not been impressed with Dundee for sure. I gave Dundee plenty benefit of doubt. But they turned out to be bay street types rather than mine developers. The project was maybe too difficult and return was not soon enough. I think this is what happens when old mining engineers (Ned) are replaced by MBAs.
"I have given up on Dundee a long time ago, my question is where is the body like "OSC" that is in place to monitor protect shareholders and investors from manipulation, fraud and to insure that there is proper communication provided to shareholders and that their investments are protected from being given away and exchanged for peanuts.
Almonty Industries Inc (TSXV:AII) Net Current Asset Value Per Share C$-0.46 (As of Mar. 2015) In calculating the Net Current Asset Value (NCAV), Benjamin Graham means a company's current assets (such as cash, marketable securities, and inventories) minus its total liabilities (including preferred stock and long-term debt). Almonty Industries Inc's net current asset value per share for the quarter that ended in Mar. 2015 was C$-0.46."
NCAV is not a good way to value junior miners. NCAV metric is appropriate for stable dividend stocks. Graham's net-net invsting is a perfectly legitimate strategy, but I am fairly sure there is not a single junior miner with positive NCAV. If there is one, it is not doing its job at exploring /prospecting /developing, or it is faking its books (ore in the ground does not count as inventory).
"Do Your DD and Investing 101"
Exactly. This is always very good advice. And very important, expectations need to be checked and re-calibrated. This is a low of the commodity cycle maybe the bottom maybe not, but the sector is at 5-year lows and completely un-loved. Investing in junior mining today should not be approached like it was 2011 moving up fast and near the top of the cycle. At the time people were literally throwing money at these plays like there was no tomorrow. It worked and worked until it did not. Those days are gone. There may be a quick appreciation at some crucial milestone for Woulfe, but it is not going to be an easy double, let alone a 5-10 bagger, over a week's or a month's time. It is going to be slow slog as the mine is financed, constructed, started and the price of commodities recover. And there will always be people frustrated and impatient with the progress or lack thereof. In the overall picture of the commodity cycle I think this is the best time to invest with due diligence, as the technically competent managers (the kind to live at mine-sites and 100% hands on) start building the next generation of profitable mines.