We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
John Peters, Managing Director of Strategic Minerals, commented:
"SMG has now received written confirmation of the major client's intent to make payment of over US $4m in the next two weeks which would place the SML group in an attractive position to advance its various projects.
Indeed that was my recall too. The wording is not precise, splitting the "written confirmation" of the clients "intent". How was this written confirmation any different form the 30+ other "written intent" that SML received, that warranted an RNS. Since when does a text message indicate intent especially when the client has used the same trick to indicate intent and failed.
I take this from one of Gorusch post, Im sure he can give more info of what was in this mail from JP:
JP Email:
With regard to the letter of intent, this was initially over text but, this was subsequently confirmed in an email. Either way a documented agreement had been made and any reporting to the market was “accurate”.
From case file
May 23, 2019, SMG’s Peters again asked CVI’s Smith via text message if the bonds had settled. CVI’s Smith claimed she “should have funds tomorrow.” On that same day SMG’s Peters asked CVI’s Smith to formally agree to undertake certain actions to avoid legal proceedings, as follows: I was able to get my UK Directors and Alan this morning and I have got them to agree that, provided, on behalf of CV Investments, you undertake to pay SMG, within two weeks, the $375,000 December payment and top up the existing deposit with SMG by $3,690,000 they will hold all actions for those two weeks. . . . . Please provide, on behalf of CV Investments, agreement to these arrangements.” CVI’s Smith responded “Agreed. Thank you very much. Brenda.”.
FreakyZ - do you have a link to where “letter of intent” was mention, I thought I recalled it but have only been able to find “written confirmation”!
The biggest 'mistake' I made with my investment in sml was to get too emotionally attached to the BoD/company. It was my first 10 bagger (on paper) and I was seduced by the prospect of a share price aligned to the BoD options targets of 5.5p+. Now I am sitting on a substantial investment that requires a share price of 0.5p just to breakeven. It is a mistake I have not made since!
What I require from the BoD is the monitisation of LCCM and/or Redmoor that leads to a mcap/share price that enables me to move on without a loss. I no longer see this as a long term investment. If they are incapable of achieving this my preferred course of action is to use the AGM to vote out the Chairman and/or vote down any remuneration that 'rewards' the BoD (e.g. JP's bonus was a reward for failure imo for all the reasons we've previously debated!)
I have 17 current AIM investments and I do not wish to treat sml different from any of these. I do my research, sometimes share it, and set an exit price subject to any business/environmental changes that may impact the company. I don't want to debate with the BoD, except maybe at an AGM, I expect them to deliver on the business objectives that I have used as the basis of my financial investment or be held to account over their failure to do so, a process that is so sadly lacking with this BoD..
I dont follow or agree with this. From what you write, it is OK for the BoD to misguide shareholders - they have received a letter of intent to pay a shedload of money (in SML terms) and we later find out it was a text message that was preceded by 30+ similar "letters of intent". The board must be held accountable, otherwise they will get away with misinforming shareholders yet again - which they did on the latest update. At what point does enough become enough. I say the BoD have gone WAY beyond the line of giving them the benefit of doubt. Frankly if we are protecting other investors from the same experience we have had then I say as shareholders we are doing the right thing. Nothing is going to change unless we force the BoD to be accountable for their actions.
Almost everyone here is massively underwater and hoping for a spike with no substance is going to leave many upset as the rush for the doors will be crushing. There needs to be a fundamental change at the top. Under current leadership shareholders have been led down a merry path, they need to be held to account. No more excuses. I will not stand behind our BoD in its current shape at all.
We had a potential new investor look in on us today - Devil2789. He or she has read all the negativity over the past couple of days and walked away; and also probably told plenty of other potential investors don’t even look at SML. A lesson for us all -If we generate negativity on here we’ll get negativity back - it’s how the world works.
I can’t believe what’s happened here in a couple of days. There was a positive vibe midweek and a very tight spread at 0.39p forming and now we’ve just done a complete U turn. I will not support any personal attack’s on any members of our BOD or indeed any posters on here. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but we must not make personal attack’s / remarks about individuals.
Fundamental mistakes and misjudgments have been made, but our BOD have one last chance to rectify the situation. What we also need to realise as (Lupi pointed out the other day), is that mining is an extremely complicated and volatile sector and there are many potential dangers at every stage e.g. Permissions, increased costs, global demand or lack of it, processing problems, logistics, metal prices etc. etc. So, it’s no sure thing. However, equally things can turn in a positive direction and sentiment can return very quickly. GLA