Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the 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.
Hodgeyd,
With a smile on my face, I would gladly make anyone a nice cup of tea but certain posters will also know that theirs would be made using a dirty spoon. :)
Back to the Company,
I've no reason to doubt the work effort by RM and have never commented on the subject.
(Myself included) The vast majority of investors here, would have seen this company as a good opportunity to buy in when the company is small and wait a few years for the company to grow before selling with some really decent profits... Simple effective plan.
As time goes by the market /Investors want to know how the company is doing and want to also gauge the progress against the company's (and their own) expectations/ aspirations.
It goes without saying, that they also want the company to follow the listing requirements and obligations.
The above isn't rocket science, it's just the basic duties that is required of the company to the market /shareholders.
A properly run company,
Would have the proper update structure in place, using the same metrics and performance indicators, for every periodic update and it would also contain a view from the company on its own performance and an explanation as to why.
(in-line with expectations is a very common phrase for various companies )
Currently,
The company does not adhere to this and uses a variety of methods, when updating the market / shareholders.
Current Shareholders,
The majority seem quite content using the "word of mouth" as a metric method.
For example,
People really believe funding is close and it will be like a domino effect after the audit but in reality it might be not much further than two people talking in a bar.
This is because of the procedures in securing funding include, due diligence, legal teams drawing up agreeable legal terms and then the signing of a non-binding terms agreement (that has to be put into a RNS to update the market) and only then the funding can be considered close...
Good points clearly made JC.
Thanks Zan
In theory you are right (in my view) - in practice it is rarely that clearcut.
I have years of experience dealing with distressed businesses and success is often down to hard work and luck and failure most often because of bad combination of circumstances that were difficult to foresee or plan for.
Take all those businesses that failed in Covid for example - the bosses fault?
Take those businesses that are heavily reliant on a main customer as so many are in light manufacturing for example - main customer goes bust and often brings down others with it - its' not alway possible to diversify your customer base especially if you are in a specialised market. Bosses fault? Perhaps to a degree but you need to understand the particular issues to make that judgement.
So accountability might stop at the top but its not always black and white when it comes to blame or cause and that is where people get confused here at times in my view.
Those distressed businesses who make it through to the other side do it because of hard work, adapting to changed circumstances, prudent cost control and trying to keep stake holders engaged and on board. As investors we are important stakeholders but there are many others who can have a quicker and more damaging impact if they are not on board - suppliers not giving credit terms and going to COD / regulators removing licences for health and safety issues / work forces striking because of redundancies / Banks remanding credit lines - the list is endless.
But so many posters look at this through naive eyes thinking that businesses are ran in text book fashion and should run like Swiss trains. The real world rarely works that way from my experience and sh*t can and often does happen. Its how you deal with it the counts.
I know the question wasn't to me JC, but I'd say yes.
Failure or success is always, as it should be imo, accounted for by the CEO.
As it stands, GCAT is still breathing and so I think it would be jumping the gun to say its a total failure. That, somewhat sadly, can only ever be stated once the ship has sailed and the companies been wrapped up.
Very carrot and the stick, but thats the situation. Robbie can still become a roaring success here as its not over yet.
As an extra note, as shareholders we view the SP as the measure of success, naturally of course as thats are balance sheet, but as the CEO its not the only thing that matters.
Daniel - I have been watching this company intently for the last couple of years - every move, every interview and every RNS. I have applied my limited knowledge around mining and my wider knowledge about finance and corporate activity. I have tried to be balanced. When you say I have been completely absent of balance I think you are wrong - my view. The reason you might perceive that is I spend the majority of time correcting posters such as yourself who come out with opinion guised as facts and where you are simply wrong. I try and add balance and context and in the face of unsupported negative statements, then of course I can see how some of my posts in isolation will come over as you describe.
I have never hidden my enthusiasm for this company and whether you like it or not, we were on a path for success when OCIM walked - and they did walk despite the claims here of negligence on GCAT's part. The strategy has always required expansion and expansion has always required funding of some sort. Robbie and GCAT have been rolling the ball up hill ever since in an effort to attract more investors in an incredibly difficult environment to attract funds - especially into an African country where a big investor has walked - leaving suspicion in its wake as to why. Robbie has kept the lights on and even managed to move forward in many areas and on a shoe string hand to mouth budget as he has regrouped and tried to bring the ship back on course. I really don't think most of the posters here actually understand a fraction of what it takes to run a business let alone a mining operation, with health and safety considerations, the logistics of running old plant and machinery, the vagrancies of down times in electric power due to widespread country power issues, the requirements that go with being a fully listed company, attracting the right calibre personnel - the list goes on. The likes of you Daniel show no understanding of what it takes to run any kind of business - you just pontificate about how easy it must be to come up with a set of accounts.
I disagree by the way about whether success or failure will be down to one man. Yes the top person is normally held accountable but it takes a team to succeed and we know that Robbie is running an incredibly lean managerial team, so maybe in this instance when it is turned around, Robbie will be largely responsible but not fully. Just in the same way if it fails it will not be all his fault. From my business experience there is rarely black and white in these things.
What do I think was Robbie's greatest error - putting too much faith in OCIM and communicating that trust and confidence to shareholders before the deal was done. He hasn't recovered from that in many eyes since but I think he has learned hs lesson and precisely why we aren't getting any feedback at the moment of detail on funding being put together in anticipation of the audit being released. Just my view.
Antagonising with replies. That’s all you ever do with peoples posts Bebeto.
I for one think Robbie works damn hard and once they have the right people in the right positions in the company he can crack on and concentrate one what he’s good at. Since taking on Caracal he’s tried to be everything and no one can do that well or successfully.
Once they get new board members and a CFO things should look better and the company run better too, and hopefully our Chairman will be more involved and this is communicated to shareholders so we know and understand what he’s doing for our company.
Come on PKF, let’s get this audit out and let Caracal move forwards for the benefit of us all.
As a general rule, JC, yes. That's how business works.
Sitting at the top isn't fun. You get the plaudits when it goes well and the pelters when it doesn't.
What I don't understand is your insistence on the opposite - it's never down to poor old Robbie. It's a confusing stance, unless of course you're very close to him (or even are him). The complete absence of balance is odd.
FWIW, I think he's done 'alright'. Four out of Ten. I've seen worse but I've also seen better.
Legalwolf - I see your stance is that failure would be totally down to Robbie. Presumably then success would also be totally down to Robbie?
Folio,
Its just my belief, that's all. I don't think it is childish to suggest that someone posting full stops as a topic, to hide others views is manipulation. I feel that is factual.
The dictator comment was a joke in jest really as trying to control free speach and other users viewing options feel very bb dictator like.
That's my take on those actions. Its not argueing and on a personal level I have no desire to make you feel unhappy but it doesn't mean I agree.
Somerset, yes really. I've learn't more from those who have different views to me than from those that have the same. Legal which you referenced, might have a more empty glass than me but is prob one of the most switched on knowledge wise investors Ive seen across the boards.
Echo chambers full of yes men are to me more dangerous as they can blind you from the truth.
Some prefer confirmation bais as it feels nicer and I get that. As always, each to their own.
No one is going anywhere. Bebeto has already told you what to do if you don't like a poster or their posts. Either you debate them back, which is what BB are for, or you hit the filter button and remain in blissful ignorance.
I'm surprised people are getting so worked up about postings on here because the share is currently suspended. This is exactly the time to air it all out, good or bad.
If the company goes under, that is directly RM's fault because he's the one who has been in the driving seat, making all the decisions. To say that it's not his fault, because OCIM walked away last minute, is a big cop out. OCIM (even if you do believe the yarn) had nothing to do with wasting precious funds on TZ assets (that GCAT can't now progress), or promising non dilution and then diluting away in the background without telling the market. He's lost a lot of trust and credibility, and that harms all shareholders, even those that support him, and hence you investment.
Anyway, very little of this matters until or unless the company gets relisted.
Zan - these comments are really childish imo, you accused me of manipulation, and now of being a dictator .
Really . The only time I see the other poster you mention is before I log in. Rather than misquote - I really mean that someone seems really really aggigated that the same post thread is not repeated ( a negative one) . So oh dear someone has a different view - how on earth does that work in a dictatorship lol.
I fully concur with what SomersetUK has just posted.
I wish you all the best in your investmentments Zan . There is not point arguing with each other through a suspension .
And there we have it, you don't want to read my views and you don't want to filter me because you want to take issue with my views.
So most likely using several avatars within the process.
I'm sorry I can't help you there as the issue is obviously on your side and not mine.
Really Zan?
We have had to suffer Bebeto all 2024. Constantly bashing this company every day which he used to say he had shares in post suspension, which if he does, he is doing his utmost to damage.
Bebeto: 'no one reads these boards, so it doesn't matter what i say as it wont change anything' no Bebeto. It does matter.
Sick of hearing from him. 'its a free world, i can do what i like here' no Bebeto, just leave us shareholders alone.
And just as things couldn't get any worse Legal Wolf turns up again to spread his cleverly balanced and reasoned poison, laying doubt at every turn, and pointing at things that only the company can answer, therefore, leaving the doubt hanging in the air...... go back to Helium 1 please Legal Wolf and all the high stakes madness going on over there.
Thank God for the positive souls on here.
Robbie has been dealt a tough hand. Let's support him.
He was set up with problems way back in the beginning when Jason Brewer promised us all 2000+ ounces a months in a matter of days....
The OCIM problem was all OCIM's doing, not Robbies. Landing that impossible to meet demand on Robbie at the last minute dropped him in the turd.
I have been a shareholder here since the beginning, and have bought more stock 20 times.
I believe we will be ok.
If we are not, then so be it. Robbie is working his butt off to make this right.
Yes we all want more communication. Yes its taking ages.
I am very encouraged by the more recent investment of 750k by a very well informed investor that i assume is here to make some serious cash. You don't put that kind of money in without careful consideration.
We are only a 6 million market cap.
People say a blood bath when it relists.
That's rubbish. What will it be? 6 million down to 2 million on the first day, then back again?
I hope so, as i will hoover up more stock as it will be a 10 bagger in the making with these gold prices and an asset that is huge in such a brilliant jurisdiction. It may (sellers getting much needed cash out for personal reasons perhaps) drop, and then bounce back big time if Robbie gets his ducks in a row, which, with these gold prices i am sure he will.....
RM needs to step down for the future of the company.
We need someone with real experience who can deliver:
A credible business plan with achievable asperations, for the market to use in order to form investment decisions.
Company following the guidelines for listing requirements.
Updates to the market in a structured timely fashion.
I come on here to talk about the company but if people really do not want to read my posts then please use the filter facility.
There's no point in trying to antagonise me with your replies because you're taking the discussion away from the company and whatever you say has no affect on my posting. :)
On the subject of rage. I'm a very relaxed individual, I'm also one GCATs more positive posters, but I'm not ignorant to failures either.
If you were aiming your comment towards Bebeto, love them or hate them, they are always calm and chilled in their responses.
I have very different views to them but credit to them they are always polite and reasonsed in their debate, which shows intelligence to me, and thus, as adults, we can just converse without having to try to hide popular topics by posting full stop ones to fill the board, because we aren't dictators lol.
You were asked directly, why do you post just a full stop.
You haven't answered that.
If its to push down topics, then yes that is manipulating the board. That's not me being unkind, it would just be a truth.
I did say it might be because you don't know how to create topics correctly too.
If you are doing it to manipulate top topics, push down others, than I fail to see how you can throw stones at anyone else as your actions are no better.
And if you honestly think no company has gone under which had HNW individuals involved that I would suggest you do more research. I picked Lehman to give an example of how no one is to big to fail. I could easily have picked one of the thousand others. Sirus Minerals had HNW individuals involved. Did that stay afloat simply because of them? Nope.
JC - I didn't think I would utter these words. "One , and One for All"
I would say that appears a succsent and fitting summary JC.
Regardless of what I think, I want option 1 lol.
Well there we go . Play the old Manipulation card.
And pull Lemham Bros out lol. Lemham went thanks to Sub Prime, and to think we won't see a raft of US Banks repeat this is like believing Jim Cramer was only wrong once .
The Manipulation is the answering back on the threads created by others who are putting out a line - dangling the bait too see who will answer and promote their Thread with " **** offers ****". and there you go you keep posting what they want to push.
Does it really matter in a Nutshell not very much as the stock is suspended.
However there is clearly a poster here that seems to having nothing else to do sadly - and that is nothing to do with GCAT, you see it on many others, it could be for a variety of reasons . So I don't really fell it's appropriate to engage for them. Jersey Crew has rightly come on to post about the misrepentation of facts .
Even Warren Buffet took a hit on Paramount . Best not to stress over things that cannot be controlled imo.
If you are entering the Junior stock of Miners as Rick Rule said - If you aren't prepared for it to be down 50%, you aren't prepared - or something along theses lines. This isn't Newmont, Barrick or Wheaton . So expect a rocky road. However being full of rage and negative thoughts all day isn't helping anyone imo.
Lets face it most of us fall into one of these camps in their thinking:
1. will come out of suspension and will turn good - hold / top up or trade
2. will come out of suspension but still doomed - sell
3. will not come out of suspension - no decision to make
Any other scenarios?
Over to the auditors....
I’m most definitely not running scared Bebeto. Far from it. With all the nonsense you’re posting that sounds more like you are….
Citing HNW isn’t a weak comeback whatsoever, there’s not many HNWI’s out there that chuck $780k into something in the hope it fails so they can declare the loss for tax purposes.
You feel the need to argue down everyone else’s points, opinions, even facts, but expect everyone to accept yours, the fact you post so often says it all really. I’ve been on LSE several years now and have posted 242 times, you however have posted 3,321 times, we both joined LSE in 2018 a few months apart. Like I say, says it all really.
Caracal is no different to so many other AIM and Main market listed companies then repeatedly make promises and fail to deliver. Some go under, do a reverse takeover or continue and tune thing around. By they’re are many far worst run companies than Caracal.
Funding collapse was down to a legality, not Robbie’s failure. He’s worked hard to keep the company going to date, although I agree, he has most definitely overtones and under delivered. But when you’re trying to run a company single handed and be everything to everyone he’s bound to drop some balls and make mistakes. How he’s learns from this mistakes is key. Let’s hope he has.
We have a new Chairman, I say new, he’s been in a while now but we never hear from him, he never communicates to us shareholders, in my view he’s failing us more than Robbie but that’s purely based on the fact we know nothing about what he’s doing, how he’s helping or what he’s achieving. If anything.
Once funding hits and we get new board members, as has been RNS’d, hopefully Robbie can concentrate on his key skill areas and let others do the things they’re good at.
At the end of the day we all want this to succeed, I’m convinced it will, eventually, and we can all laugh at your posts, scaremongering and nonsense posted on what clearly is your only job and purpose in life here on LSE. I certainly don’t have the time, or care to post as much as you do. I’m only posting this and taking the time to do so as I’m waiting in a BT engineer to fix my broadband.
HNW individuals is a very poor arguement to use imo.
Many a stock which has gone under was previously funded and had HNW individuals money in.
The whole idea that they just won't let something go under has no history or facts behind it.
Yes they have wealth, but that doesn't mean they will just keep pumping good money after bad. Everyone has a line in the sand for whens enough and dispite the fact some of us might view things as rosey or having great potential, it doesn't make it true or a view everyone else will have.
Its like the old line "to big to fail". Tell that to Lehman Brothers, tell that to the literally thousands of big timers which have hit the walls over the decades.
Offsetting losses is the same. Its not some magic money tree. Its still a loss and while it can reduce a tax burden, I'm pretty sure most would have just not have lost in the first place.
GCAT could become a great success or it could fail, but either way will have zero to do with the above two myths. It will be because the company can make a good enough business case that if you fund it, it will provide you with a larger return.
Tell me about it. I view it as an attempt to manipulate the board by pushing topics they don't like down the page.
But it could just be that they don't understand how to create topics correctly.
They're running scared because they don't want a shareholder revolt and probably by the time there would be one it would be too late.
The weakest comeback is to say HNW individuals have invested but they use their losses as a tax benefit which mitigates their risk.
Why do you post a single full stop Folio ? You do it quite often and I don't understand it. What does it signify ?