Member Info for addicknt

Expert on trading matters, but does anyone else think the pattern of very small trades, both buys and sells, looks a bit odd?

DM, the interesting point about managing the current cash situation is the comment that we should expect a recommendation about funding before the end of H1. Clearly, we don't need any more 'lights on' cash, so what did that statement refer to? And as I've said before, funding is only a tool for delivering a strategy - so what's the strategy?

Fort, obviously not. However, the longer we remain in the dark, the longer this remains a tricky investment proposition.

You are right, we need an RNS in advance of the meeting, otherwise it runs the risk of simply being yet another burble-fest of just how great we are and what wonderful prospects we have. We've heard it a million times before and if that's what he has in mind, he'd be better off not holding the meeting.

Submitted six questions for the discussion on Thursday. None of them were price sensitive, but they do reflect the key themes which appear here on a daily basis. It will be interesting to see if he addresses them.

Caldwell has the opportunity to prove he's not like our previous CEOs and that he's capable of providing us with a very clear sense of direction. Let's hope he doesn't waste it and resorts to the usual obfuscation and evasion. Now's the time to come clean and tell us which direction he's taking the company.

Quite right, TW.

You've really got hung-up on this idea of yours, haven't you?

Yesterday you said I was seeing things through the lens of a takeover, and in a way you're right - I do believe it will happen, although I see the sale of ENSA as being the route, but I have no idea of when. However, you are equally guilty of seeing things through your own lens and appear blind to all other possibilities. Your insistence that this latest purchase is simply a case of Jiangxi avoiding dilution is a point in case. None of us know what's going to happen and to ignore other possibilities strikes me as being daft.

And please don't fall back on the argument that you're here to act as a counter-balance to the more 'enthusiastic' posters - we're more than capable of making up our own minds.

DBW, sorry, I was referring to the investor meet web site, not ours. Should have made it clearer, but I'm sure snowman is right.

In any event, will it contain anything new? I suppose we may find out exactly what's been happening on the ground, but will he answer questions about the SR? because that's the only thing I want to know about.

One other observation: These online events are fine and dandy, but they are no substitute for live questioning and direct interaction - the same applies to the AGM. The CEO can pick and choose what questions he wants to answer without fear of being interrogated about his response. In other words, he can easily dodge answering anything 'difficult'. Who can forget the 'Remove Mather' AGM, when Twigger behaved disgracefully by not only refusing to field ANY questions, but he didn't even bother to provide the traditional annual report. It was shocking behaviour from a chairman and he should have resigned.

The web site states "no upcoming events".

Mrpt, don't worry, he lied about my posting history yesterday. Seems to be a common tactic of his.

I'm surprised novice hasn't appeared with his "20p by Friday" observation. I have no intention of assuming his mantle. Having said that...

I'm praying you're right. I'm sick to death of this share.

RK, you're remarkably sure of yourself, which, in the circumstances, seems a bit odd.

We know what we'd like to happen, but we have absolutely no way of knowing what's actually going on. By the way, the May MD&A said exactly the same thing about the SR as the Prospectus, so I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me.

We know we've got sufficient working capital for the next 12 months, but the SR is not addressing that issue - it's taking a much wider view.

RK, the Prospectus is a more important document.

Anyway, as you know, I too want to see this sold, but it's important to think about what has been said by the company, no matter even if you think it's baloney.

RK, read my first post in this thread - it contains the answer to your question.

Ship, I get the feeling they're looking to raise a fairly significant amount - the CGP shares wouldn't raise enough.

E.T you're right, it would dilute us.

Alternatives?

A bond issue. Effectively it would be junk status and hugely expensive - 12/13%? Or perhaps even more.

In the good ol' days we could issue non-voting pref shares, either redeemable, non-redeemable or convertible. But these don't really exist anymore.

Straightforward debt? No chance.

Another royalty deal? That's been ruled out, although I wouldn't be that surprised to see us change our minds.

And then there's the equity market. Just think, we raise 100m and give away over 20% of the business.

None of the above are appealing. We need to sell the bloody thing!

Q, one other thing: An off-take deal would not provide the up-front capital required for the mine development. At this stage it would merely be a letter of intent to purchase the ore once the mine is producing. I think you're referring to a royalty deal, which is hugely expensive and from memory, has already been ruled out.

Your preferred route of a jv would dilute us to a considerable degree and, to my mind, must be avoided.

Q, as I've just pointed out, selling a stake in ENSA necessarily implies dilution of our shareholding.

I should have added that when they refer to 'any other options' they clearly mean the complete sale of the group or Cascabel alone.

If avoiding dilution is a priority to the company, this is the only way forward that works for us small shareholders.

Interpretation:

1. funding to be used to recommence our regional exploration programme. (our existing funds are to cover existing overheads only)

2. A funding package for the development of Cascabel appears not be under consideration. This contradicts the next point.

3. We will sell a stake in either the plc or ENSA. This must be for Cascabel development. Confusing, ain't it?

4. Point 3 means there will be significant dilution.

5. Given our other assets are pretty worthless at this stage, is the reference to 'other assets' Porv?

"In order to fund the exploration and drilling activities of the Group thereafter (no mention of mine development), the Company is undertaking a strategic review to evaluate a wide range of financing and strategic options to secure funding, including, but not limited to, selling a direct or indirect stake in the Cascabel project, selling other assets of the Company, or any other transaction, which may, or may not, dilute existing shareholders.

The Board expects to recommend its future funding strategy in H1 2023 in connection with the Company's ongoing strategic review'.