The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen 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, it's finally happened. I tried relentlessly at times to say the shares would be suspended. Got lambasted by Tyndrumboy, samson, genoir and others for doing so. Well, where are they now to tell you how wrong I was? Just remember who was on here trying to give you the heads up, Me, BP, Baz etc. and those who didn't come on to tell you the truth after years of pumping it away. Where was TB when it was going wrong to come on and tell us all? NOWARE. In hiding like a coward. I wouldn't want to be that man. Bring in the regulators. Heads must roll.
So sorry for those who have lost.
No worries Gazz đź‘Ť
I'd like to re-post this as most seems as relevant here today as when first written about another company.
Some might cynically say that the focus of a junior exploration company's board of directors is to keep raising enough cash to pay their own salaries. However those directors might say they are there to keep the markets interested in the company so they can raise the funds needed to explore. This isn't easy in a sector noted for endless delays and over-spends, where most projects fail and even simple projects can take many years to progress.
Without lying to the markets or concealing truths, companies are constantly trying to generate enough new enthusiasm to compensate for dilution and impatient market participants who sell up. Consequently good marketing will seek to highlight any positives by exploiting even distant links to fashionable ideas or remote chances of near term good news. All done whilst using caveats and words like "potential" "prospective" or "estimate" that provide wriggle room should people's expectations later fail to be met. In other words, when promoting reasons to be optimistic, directors may be legally forbidden from leading us up the garden path, but they can step to one side whilst encouraging others to excitably run ahead on their own.
I've seen many junior explorers attacked for misleading markets, along with angry accusations of their management exploiting small shareholders by deliberately running a company in to financial troubles so that it can be acquired "on the cheap" by its creditors. Such critics are often emotional individuals who, without adequate understanding, excitably rushed to buy the herd's enthusiasm and then without allowing adequate time to make progress, make losses selling in to their disappointment. Such people need to recognise that most explorer's PR translates as "...we can't confirm anything just yet, but please help us by getting carried away anyway".
Arguably part of the job of a director is the ability to get you to part with your money. Each time you purchase shares they succeed. Consequently every speculator needs the ability to buy, hold or sell shares without being distracted by a company's PR or the emotions of other investors.
You need to understand what is usual for the sector in terms of what is said and when, or even if, it is actually delivered. You must then identify if there are any reasons to believe a specific company may be an exception rather than the norm. This is done by analysing their communications to separate definite and actionable facts from distracting promotional targets and aspirations. Understanding how others may fail at this can help you can better assess if any potential rewards outweigh all the risks surrounding future unknowns. Most importantly you must be able to live with the consequences of being wrong which, as you cannot eliminate risk, often means not speculating with more than you can afford to lose.
Yes, NLR has prior form in delisting. Very likely that the unnamed consultants who allegedly carried out the mine review are actually administration/MBO specialists since any other credible consultancy would have been named.
I will lose big if it goes under but have no interest in maintaining any kind of respect.
It looks to me as if we were lied to and to the extent it was possibly criminal.
Let's not pretend we should be playing nice.
Gazz, you always without fail, get some smug tw*t come on a BB the day of very sad news, to say they sold out ages ago, good for you, now push off if your not invested.
Some have lost big on here and just as importantly some may loose there jobs at the mine. Show some respect.
This might be a small point in the catastrophe that is Scotgold but if discussions are in an advanced stage, how can the outcome be highly uncertain?
If discussions were at a preliminary stage, sure. But at an advanced stage? Sounds strange or really, really bad.
"The Company is actively seeking additional financing and discussions are in an advanced stage and, should they materialise, are expected to provide sufficient funding for the Company to continue as a going concern. The outcome of the funding discussions is highly uncertain "
TB knew the jig was up in early June and went awol.
Oh well…… i think in our hearts most of us knew it was a dying duck.
I suspect that for all but a few - it “fell too fast to get out” and any money left in was a “shot to nothing” and not worth pulling. It still hurts though when any loss is crystallised.
On the plus side - it will not drop any lower today and if they do find investment (that doesn’t want to invest after administration) we could be back in the game.
Skint (and now a bit more skint).
Andrew,
"anyone any suggestions on what the review will tell us. i can only see three outcomes.
1. everything is great, keep doing as you are.
2. everything isn't great, we need more investment/dilutions to continue or restructure.
3. everything is terrible, it's all over, we didn't realise until now. **** covering time."
Well it's been presented as no.2, but is clearly no.3.
Sorry to everyone who's lost on this one.
And I hope the ramper-in-chief is brought to justice sooner rather than later !
The BBC and newspapers got the information about the Klondike from the company and specifically the then CEO, no?
tb finally looks to have called one right: and so it begins.
We're doomed -probably. At least suspended with the ominous threat of impending doom hanging over our heads until further notice. :o).
BBC News - their initial sensational reporting has a lot to answer for - as we know it was clearly fake news; many people were motivated to invest on the back of this 'Klondyke' ye ha.... What a shambles.
Well that was a fun read
Would love a shareholders meeting for a welfare check on a few shareholders MIA.
Can only imagine the promises that will be made. I suppose, when your CEO turns up to a video conference call in a hoodie saying thats all he's comfortable saying at the moment.... it's not exactly rocket science things are ropey I suppose. As baz said, the writings been on the wall for a while. The review might confirm it. If there is one.
My point isn't odd at all.
What is odd is that we weren't told when the report would begin, when it was targeted to finish and the name of the company doing it.
Will they ever dare to hold another meeting to which shareholders are invited?
"Sorry guys but we're stony. We've spaffed away all your millions; Cononish is an ex mine, and the other phenomenal assets in our licence area, well, we didn't quite get started on any of them as you know. But our ESG score is pretty good and we should all be proud of that. Any questions?"
"Guards! Guards!!"
I mean, it’s not as if there’s any directors in the company who would actively ask for legal advice on how much bad news can be kept from shareholders is it.
Oh wait…
BP
I would assume when a company announces a review they then implement that review. Just common sense. If you are proposing a huge gap prior to commencement of the review even though it was announced, should they not inform they are announcing it far in advance of its commencement? Odd point.
So the third party reviewer is now installing ventilation upgrades etc? Or are the directing the upgrades and not reviewing but directing?
Or is there no third party and the internal review is by the blind leading the blind?
Or are decisions made regarding ventilation upgrades preceding the outcome of the said review?
On to say what a review will encompass when it’s supposed to review which direction to take!
One might assume that the whole Shirade of a “review” was mere smoke and mirrors to keep you minions silent for a few months eh!
Atb to you
How can it be the longest review if you don't know when it started? The announcement on 10th July didn't tell us.
If it wasn't for the constantly dire cash position and the warnings about material uncertainty about the business continuing or whatever the wording was, then this paragraph, in isolation, could be construed as almost positive. LOL. By itself, it doesn't sound like the end is nigh.
"The review will initially encompass an assessment of the mine design, schedule and production forecasts. This review will inform 2023 production forecasts and will also incorporate a second stage of power and ventilation upgrades to improve mine accessibility and enable the mine to operate all development and production equipment simultaneously to improve mine development rates. This second stage of power and ventilation upgrade allows a step change in development rates and opens up more mining fronts by enabling equipment to operate in parallel. This is necessary to complete the capital development required for ventilation, resource definition drilling and continuation of the incline to open up more mining fronts."
However, the fact that the company has lost more than 98% of its value remains the uncomfortable reality.
Well done old chap on the surgery. Glad it went well.
Even better when it’s on the nhs but I fear any surgery at Scotgold will be time consuming and costly. Longest review I’ve ever seen already. Or is review complete and outcomes unpublished? How long will city rules permit that
Glad to hear that Rockhead, enjoy your weekend.
Sad to hear the news from green glen minerals, tops off a difficult few years for them.
4. SG survives surgery.
Why not? I just have!
Have a good w/e all, R.
anyone any suggestions on what the review will tell us. i can only see three outcomes.
1. everything is great, keep doing as you are.
2. everything isn't great, we need more investment/dilutions to continue or restructure.
3. everything is terrible, it's all over, we didn't realise until now. **** covering time.
open to other theories but are any of the 3 above good?
Troajan hates the truth. Doesn't want to hear of how bad it actually is. Doesn't want others hearing how bad it is. And why you may ask? Well... kind of obvious that one.
It's an impossible ramp these days, which is presumably why the worst of the pumpers have fled the scene. But back in the day, I didn't notice you complaining about their one-sided posts. For a long time, the rampers conspired to get the negative posters banned leaving the coast clear for unadulterated ramping. Remind me when you complained about the lack of balance then.