Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 2, 2026

Concord Resources Ltd

Concord Resources Ltd looks over-valued against its niche peers and is dormant on financing cadence.

DeprioritizeFinancing has gone silent well past the sector's normal cadence — treat as inactive until outside confirmation of a live operation.

Businessfiled

Concord Resources Ltd operates in Other, based in LONDON.

Sector still resolves to a broad 'Other' bucket, so operating comparables below are weaker than for a tightly-classified peer.

No verified homepage on file yet — operating evidence is limited to the public record.

Capital & rounds (filed)filed

Concord Resources Ltd has raised $97M in disclosed capital across 1 recorded round, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series C (a $40M–$100M round).

Largest single filing: $97M on 2015-12-05.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2015-12-05.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Concord Resources Ltd at approximately $1.7B (range $373M–$4.4B). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Over-valued. Modeled value is 1.93× the median modeled value of Series C Other companies in 2013–2015 (148 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Last raise 10.6 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

Only one round on record and long silent — often defunct, acquired, or gone quiet.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 96% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 98% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Island Timberlands Finance Corp, Layne Christensen Co, Autotask Superior Holding, Inc., Creative Artists Agency Holdings LLC, UFS Group Holdings, Inc..

Peoplefiled

1 named person on file across officers, directors and signatories.

Risks & flagsmixed

Financing has been silent well beyond sector cadence — possibly defunct, acquired, or paused.

Modeled above niche peers — valuation risk on entry.

Broad sector classification weakens peer comparison.

No clearly named CEO/founder/principal in the surfaced records — key-person evidence is thin.