GreenRoc Accelerates their World Class Project to Production as Early as 2028. Watch the full video 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.
Well have to differ on this one. Time will tell.
A lender isn't normally a massive risk taker that is the role of the shareholder. He normally would want the assets secured against saleable assets or guaranteed by directors
Apparently the mine can not be used to guarantee the loan and the last accounts questioned whether it was a going concern. The situation doesn't seem to have improved since then. This reminds me of the Woodsmith Mine. That was a viable mine but Sirius mineral ran out of cash. You won't get someone to effectively take all the risk while shareholders whose company has run out of cash take any profit. Isn't going to happen.
The average timeline for completing an audit of financials for a large multinational company typically ranges from 3 to 6 months.
For a smaller company like Caracal Gold PLC, the audit timeline would generally be shorter compared to that of a large multinational corporation. Typically, the audit of a smaller company’s financials can be completed within 1 to 3 months.
They had 4 months before suspension to complete and are now in the 8th month of suspension, it's a bit of a stretch to blame PKF for nearly 12 months to complete. IMO
Thanks for the compliment Char - I will think about it.
ATB
The Moss
A few observations on your post if I may:
- you say we are not talking about a massive audit - that doesn't really mean anything with respect. The complexity, multi jurisdictional, multi currency, multi company structure and specialist reports requested on assessing the mining plan, makes this a significant piece of work.
- the whole issue of this being a going concern - the very fact that the company continues to operate, produce gold and pay the bills without the benefit of the additional funds that we know are required for expansion plans, speaks volumes. We are nearly due the next audit let alone this finalisation of this one. It is very difficult to understand how an audit company would create an argument that it is not a going concern given that it is continuing to trade and produce gold and knowing that the audit when produced, will allow funding to proceed and greatly strengthen the companies ability to move forward. The auditors will I am sure produce a qualifying statement along the lines of the need to raise capital - but we have known that from day 1.
- audit fee - do you really think that PKF have done all this work for nothing so far? Not a chance - they will require at the very least interim payments.
- in terms of being potentially sued - as I mentioned I am fully expecting the audit to be heavily caveated in terms of future capital requirements. Anyone or any entity providing funds will have fully done their due dilligence and be going into the transaction with their eyes open. There will be absolutely no come back on the auditors if the company subsequently fails. If that was the possibility there simply would be no audit firms out there willing to undertake this activity.
Finally in my view a rights issue is very likely a non starter at this point given the sentiment that probably exits with the majority of existing holders at the moment. It would be an expensive and possibly futile exercise. What we need here is a hard nose commercial backer who fully understands the history of what has transpired over the last 18 months and of course also fully understands the mining plan and how funds can and will be used to achieve the strategic goals.
Given all the distraction of the audit delay and suspension, investors have probably forgotten the underlying drivers behind this business case which have only improved whilst being in suspension as a result in the increased POG.
"But PKF are running a real risk here, because GCAT could go under here as a result of the time taken to do the audit, or lose financing as a result, which RM has already alluded to. I'm just surprised that a company like PKF would take on such a risk, and why they would even take on such a potentially poisoned chalice audit if they are so stretched."
People saying PKF is stretched in this particular audit is pure speculation. We are not talking a massive audit here. They said in a previous audit they had doubts whether it was a going concern. This causes the following problems.
1 If it isn't a going concern that would have a massive affect on the valuation of assets and the subsequent profit or loss.
2 If they say they do not consider Caraca l a going concern and no loan is forthcoming their audit fee is on the line unless a director guarantee has been secured.
3 the big risk is they pass the accounts on the basis of it being a going concern, someone advances a multi million pound loan on the strength of the accounts and it subsequently goes under. They would be sued for millions. If they say it isn't a going concern there would probably be no loan.
Massive shout. Would You like to make it?
The obvious answer is a rights issue but would you put more money in?
Jc come back to TG pls we need you and your experience.
Https://www.glassdoor.co.in/Reviews/PKF-International-Reviews-E27695.htm#:~:text=PKF%20International%20has%20an%20employee,a%20good%20working%20experience%20there.
Read some of the comments - watch out for the audit ones
Surely PKF know how to hire more employees with the requisite profiles even on a temporary basis ?!!
So you have said a number of times before Greg.
Does it help repeating?
Dead Duck all my monies lost
Legalwolf it makes absolutely no sense at all to me. I have never come across an audit company that simply refuses to give a timeline.
Just catching up with this afternoon's posts. I have to echo some of what Bebeto has said. I don't think Daniel said anything that is outside the normal range of normal discussion on a bb, and particularly in the circumstances. So calling him out is a bit harsh in my opinion.
JC - I note what you say about problems with PKF. If that's what you are hearing in the city, then fair enough. I guess it does chime with what GCAT are saying. But PKF are running a real risk here, because GCAT could go under here as a result of the time taken to do the audit, or lose financing as a result, which RM has already alluded to. I'm just surprised that a company like PKF would take on such a risk, and why they would even take on such a potentially poisoned chalice audit if they are so stretched.
Also, it's gone on long enough as it is, and how can they be so stretched that they can't even give an indicative timescale? Does that make sense to you?
I find it concerning that the primary input from some posters here is to discredit those with differing opinions. Constructive dialogue is essential for us as investors to navigate the challenges facing GCAT, and dismissing others outright undermines that process.
Regarding RM, it’s crucial to remember that healthy skepticism and diverse viewpoints contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the company’s situation. Blindly valuing the CEO without considering valid concerns raised by other shareholders doesn’t foster a balanced perspective.
If we can’t discuss and critique the company’s actions objectively, how can we trust that our collective opinion of RM is credible? It’s important to hold leadership accountable, especially in times of uncertainty. Constructive criticism isn’t about being negative; it’s about ensuring that the company is held to high standards of transparency and performance.
Let's focus on the facts and work together to advocate for more transparent communication from the company. Open, respectful discussion will ultimately benefit all shareholders.
Best regards,
Bebeto
The rules surrounding updating the market are ambiguous, there is not set time merely in a timely fashion.
Therefore (even if the company had a pot to pee in) it's doubtful that anyone would actually take on a libelous case in this instance, as it's likely to be thrown out.
Regarding the FCA, if anything untoward was found and presented to them, they would first decide whether to investigate before doing an investigation, which would take ages before it would come to a conclusion, so shareholders would not probably be informed in the near term.
PKF are going to verify the mine expansion plan and would most likely have to out source this to a qualified competent persons report. This would take additional time to achieve and not as straightforward as the company would like.
We're all just going to have to wait and see how this all plays out, it's noted that in the last two updates there's been no mention of any gold sales.
Danieldavis - I filter very few people here but you have just made the cut. I only mention in case you wonder why I am no longer correcting your posts.
When /if you read the RNS which in my opinion will be coming - stating that the audit is complete and the shares are coming out of suspension, perhaps then it is time to reflect with others, how you let yourself go down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories and believing in naughty men hiding in the shadows.
For anyone interested, if you want to see any progress on site use the following:
https://sentinelshare.page.link/5Lxm
Not many changes in the last 5 days but been a few things changing slowly over the last few weeks.
And I don't disagree that they didn't "have" to update. This is my point around most of the RNS process. It's quite easy to see most of the rules one way or the other. There are very few scenarios where you'd absolutely have to update until 100% solidified.
I'd have "liked" to have seen an RNS that updated the market with "we have not yet currently drawn down the funds due to ongoing discussions regarding XYZ. We are optimistic that these will conclude positively and will update in the coming days".
But I'd also have "liked" us to submit the accounts on time.
No, my wording presents known data. It had to be drawn down by 31st December as per the RNS. It wasn't as per the later RNS. The company knew it wasn't drawn down in the interim period because it wasn't in their bank.
Nothing libellous in that.
It's not me who has this holistic belief in sign off and FCA rules regarding RNS announcements. It's you that continues to tell us all that the wording of them goes through rigorous approval processes. Myself, I think AIM is awash with slow announcements. I see this company as no different. What would I tell the FCA? "They're a bit slow at admin". Errr, yeah, we're nearly a year late for accounts... Go figure.
Danieldavies- it is a discussion forum for opinion. Your wording presents your thoughts as facts. Words are important.
In terms of the RNS if the company continued to believe that funds would be forthcoming they could be justified in waiting on updating the market otherwise a premature announcement could have wrong footed the market had funds been subsequently received. If you think that there are grounds of wrong doing please share them with the FCA . I think you will find that others will have already done so though if there were grounds.
Suggest you consider your wording carefully in future rather than create potentially libellous assertions. You are entitled to your view - presenting your view as facts unless backed by evidence is not welcome, helpful or informative though.
Seems a few are making some quite serious and unfounded allegations against the company and its directors. Dangerous ground…..
suggesting fraud against a specific individual also dangerous and wrong on every level.
Suggesting the audit delay means something is fundamentally wrong is also wrong in itself. If you research PKG you’ll easily find other companies that have been put out by their delays and PKG taking on too much work to cope. I don’t know how much we’ve paid them but I hope the company push back and ask for some of it back. Unlikely to happen though.
As others have mentioned, if the audit had raised serious issues they would’ve flagged it with the FCA and we’d all know about.
Stick to facts and stop assuming things that don’t exist and spreading unsubstantiated BS.
I have the words in the RNS. The long stop was the 31st December. When funds weren't drawn down by 1st January we should have been told on or by the first day of trading (3rd Jan). No? People on here were discussing it with "shouldn't we have heard something either way, by now?". Would you not consider that to be important information for shareholders to know in a timely fashion?
On the day the RNS finally dropped there was a 10 fold increase in share volume. Feels like the market were very much interested.
"Formally accusing". I love how that's your go to. This is a discussion forum, people are allowed to discuss that they think the BOD are terrible. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean everyone else is wrong.
Danieldavies- are you formally accusing the company of withholding market sensitive information? That is a serious allegation. What evidence do you have?
Bit like when they updated the market with this - https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/GCAT/financing-update-n63bb6tscqfg8dl.html ?
At least a week after they'd have known about it and likely a good few weeks after discussions began.
Legalwolf - 100% agree with your logic - you just need to take it to the next level though in my view - you have narrowed down to issues within PKF or problems between PKF and GCAT - if it was the latter then PKF would have had a duty of case to formally advise the company and if that was the case then the company would have had to provide a material update to the market. As we have had no such update then the problem appears be capacity within PKF and that ties in with what I am hearing on the city grapevine.
I'd say there's got to be more to do with this if they are not even providing a timeline? Either there are real problems at PKF which have nothing to do with GCAT, or the audit is raising problems between PKF and GCAT, which is why it's not being completed.
But, it's not business as usual is it? All imho and dyor