Firering Strategic Minerals: From explorer to producer. 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.
Given how the government have delayed approving this who would want to invest too much in other Mongolian projects?
Good question Mals1960. That is what Mike Buck and his inept BOD have to address and ask and not about other project. But just about our and where is their so "greatly supportive" Mongolian government.
What a disgrace instead of solving the problem they are trying to obscure our brains and justify their incompetence by detailed description the number of difficult stages and approvals required to get the EL. If all these details were so important then why they didn't tell us about it from the very beginning but are doing it now? Simply because they knew very well nobody would invest serious money in company and feed such loafers. That's why instead of the truth, Mike starts his endless tales of the huge support that PM supposedly enjoys. I can’t imagine how he will be able to look at investors eyes if he is going to lose this second year too.
Got wonder how long would it have taken when it was £2 a share? Bit of a mixed bag today but at least it didn't crash the price. GLA
It doesn't seem EL to be granted soon. This year will be wasted too.
Excuses after excuses I am afraid.
Hamm.
The company can help itself if it wishes too. I would suggest the following.
1. They produce a level 1 schedule and fully detail all the current dependencies involved in obtaining the EL.
2. They produce a P6 schedule and identify by activity each timeline associated with closing out each identified action.
3. They share their stakeholder engagement plan.
4. Any extensions to activities part of the P6 schedule that slip, the company make shareholders aware of by monthly RNS updates.
The above are simple project management tools that created traceability and accountability. Of course if the management are doing all of the above, simply share.
Shareholders deserve this as a minimum.
Spainish, you are as naive my friend now as I was couple of years ago. What you are offering could do and should have done by the management that respects itself and its investors. And not those idlers and empty talkers siting in the PM's BOD and clearly do not controlling the situation.
Manro.
This is not naivety this is simply asking the management to use simple planning and scheduling tools that trace and measure performance.
Having used these tools for the last 20 years I have always found these clearly present facts, data, and keep people abreast of what’s happening.
The RNS presented little new information.
I am again asking for traceability and accountability,
Having run and managed major capital projects I would expect these functions and the information generated to as a minimum be shared with investors and stakeholders.
My question is why is it not. ?
Spainish - good comments - I bombarded PM Admin & IR with emails - I also contacted FTI Consultants and Shore Capital - contact details at the end of RNS's - don't think it would hurt if more pressure put on them - I might be naive here but do you think PM should be telling us shareholders what and if they have already agreed anything post EL being granted - we presume a small placing will take place as per MB - but would it be good for them to say - once the EL has been granted we have already agreed funding - JV etc etc with whoever - well I'm hoping they have - surely this could help the SP - give confidence and for any small placing at an higher SP - or as mentioned am I being naive thinking they should put all their cards on the table now or wait for EL to be granted - interesting to hear comments on this
Spainish and Dozzawba I completely agree with both you. But you cannot expect transparency from management which already wasn't transparent and never will be. Therefore the only way its a putting as much pressure on them as needed and when it could be needed to make them accountable. All other positions or hopes that they could ever put all their cards on the table are our naivety and weakness which this BOD will use for their own advantages only and without even understanding chopping the branch on which they sit.
Dozzawba: Clearly, all we can do is speculate on what is going on behind the scenes. And quite frankly, I have a hunch that there is plenty of investor relevant information which PM cannot or will not release in order to maintain their entrepreneurial freedom. Obviously, there is certain information which cannot be published before it's cast in iron; as we know that kind of information is highly sensitive and usually has a substantial impact on the SP.
But yes: As investors we would like to know more about the critical issues like funding, (conditional) partnerships, timelines etc. I'm afraid we're damned to remain patient.
Ojay / Manro.
I agree with both your points and your comments. As I have also always maintained I do also sympathize with Matad and it’s board to a degree.
However mapping out a process, loading that into a schedule, and then asking Matad to deliver against that and report back is far from unreasonable. My experience has taught me that passive silence is a stance taken by some at the detriment of others. I believe in this case the LTI are the “others” and this is far from fair.
ESG is now considered a huge deliverable for corporate companies and this is a particular Matad failure. If only they would improve on this I would be happy.
I did do my own checking on the situation and what’s happening in Mongolia. The findings were interesting.
Plausible deniability is a lovely position to take, but Matad know more than they are disclosing and that is still unacceptable.
Come clean please.
Just to be sure: Does "ESG" stand for "Environment Social Governance" or something else? And if so what exactly - in your opinion - would PM need to deliver under this title?
Yes is the answer, and it’s the governance part of that group I am concerned about.